The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction can be waived if the defendant waives this objection by his conduct or otherwise then subsequently on account of this waiver, he can be precluded from taking any such objection before the appellate or revisional Courts.

R.R. Yadav, J.-Instant First Appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 27-2-1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra in Civil Original Suit No. 06 of 1976 decreeing the suit for recovery of damages filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 14,200/-with interest pendente lite till recovery.

2. The aforesaid suit for recovery of damages was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 delivered 14 truck receipts to appellant No. 3 on 15-7-1974 with a direction that documents should be delivered against the payment. It was alleged that the collection charges should be recovered from the drawee and bills could be detained for 30 days.

3. These truck receipts were dated 9-7-1974. The plaintiff-respondent under these truck receipts sent ‘bales of clothes’ to the various business organisations at Kanpur. Along with these truck receipts, the bills in the names of the various business organisations were also delivered to defendant-appellant No. 3 for collection of charges. Out of these 14 truck receipts, four pf such receipts were not delivered to the respective parties, therefore, the plaintifl7respondent enquired from the office of defendant-appellant No. 3 and upon enquiry, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 received a letter from Punjab National Bank on 22-12-1974 that these four bills had not been received in the office of Punjab National Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur. Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondent submitted duplicate truck receipts with indemnity bond in the office of defendant-appellant No. 3, which were sent to the office of defendant-appellant No. 2, so that, the same may be delivered to the respective parties. When these four duplicate receipts were received in the office of defendant-appellant No. 2, they found that the consignment of these truck receipts had already been delivered to the holders of the truck receipts on the basis of original truck receipts on 27-7-1974. As the parties could not receive the consignments, the amount so paid by them which comes to Rs. 11,699.29 was

returned to them and the plaintiff-respondent had to pay commission to the tune of Rs. 2,490/-.

4. The aforesaid negligence and mala fide misconduct of defendant-appellant necessitated the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to file the present Civil Suit for recovery of Rs. 14,200/-from them.

5. Defendant-appellant No. 3 took a plea before the learned trial Court that though he had received the bills along with truck receipts in order to collect the amount from the respective parties and the same were sent to defendant-appellant No. 2 under registered cover along with other documents which was delivered in the office of appellant No. 2 on 27-7-1974. According to the plea taken by defendant-appellant No. 3, somebody committed the theft of these four truck receipts and after committing forgery by making a false endorsement in favour of fictitious person ‘Naveen Chand’ obtained the consignments. Defendant-appellant No. 3 for the first time came to know through the letter dated 26-2-1975 received from Punjab National Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur that the consignments had been delivered on the basis of fictitious and forged endorsement at Kanpur. It is also alleged that prior to the aforesaid letter, appellant No. 3 also received a letter from Punjab National Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur dated 19-12-1974 in which it was stated that these four truck receipts were not available in the office of appellant No. 2. On 4-1-1975, defendant-appellant No. 3 sent duplicate truck receipts along with duplicate bills to appellant No. 2 and the same was delivered to the respective parties at Generalganj, Kanpur against payments. It is also alleged that as the defendant-appellant No. 3 was acting according to the agreement, to collect the bills as envisaged from ExhibitAl2/1 to Al2/8, which was duly complied with, therefore, the Bank is not liable to pay the amount